Naw, then you will get the religious nuts (not saying they all are) saying "God put it there". So until they can 100% prove without a shadow of doubt (not that I think there is any) there will be far too much uproar from certain people to bring it out to the mainstream. That's why many many discoveries in science are never brought to light.

Stuff like this has the upper hand though, since there is physical proof. Yeah there are still plenty of "what ifs" that could be said, but eventually the day will come where a God, the flying spaghetti monster, or aliens can be ruled out as a potential explanation.

I LOL'd. Religion is the hugest scam in human history. Oh here, pass this basket around and put your money in it. You'll go to heaven when you die. LOL!

I tend to think money is the biggest scam as we seem to spend our whole lives building it up only to die and not being able to take it with us and some how the lack of it stops us from bettering ourselves.

Regardless, this meteorite proves that there is life elsewhere in the universe besides Earth. (That was always true, the universe is too big for it not to be, but at least now there is definitive proof)

There’s also the fact that the research was published in the Journal of Cosmology, a peer-reviewed journal that has come under critical scrutiny numerous times since it was established in 2009. The journal faced a lot of controversy when it published a paper by NASA engineer Richard Hoover claiming to have found fossils “similar to cyanobacteria” in meteorites.

It actually doesn't confirm life came from outer space. It just confirms a possible transportation method, and doesn't answer the question of how THAT life came about (probably still abiogenesis). In fact, life still could've initiated on our planet without comet involvement.

Originated wasn't the right word to use so you're right. It's possible that life on Earth could be the result of abiogenesis and/or panspermia. We'll never know for sure until we find irrefutable evidence which is highly unlikely. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and the first signs of life, as far as we know, came into existence over 3 billion years ago. The chances of finding the preserved remains of prokaryotes (simple cells) of that age are extremely unlikely. I think it's more likely that we'll find evidence of newer forms of life on meteoroids, asteroids, or comets which would support the panspermia hypothesis.

If these are truly fossils of alien micro-organisms, then this is extremely exciting news!

That said I don't understand the conclusion that this somehow validates or strongly supports panspermia. Fossils are not living beings and cannot cause life to appear anywhere, as far as I'm aware. This doesn't prove or even suggests that living beings may travel in space through meteorites; that they could survive extreme conditions including landing through the earth's atmosphere and crashing at thousands of kilometers per hour onto the ground, and then reproduce and adapt on an alien planet. This seems quite far-fetched even for simple bacteria.

In addition, while panspermia could answer the question "where does life on Earth come from", it doesn't answer that question as applied to the Universe, where the only conceivable natural answer is abiogenesis.

That said I don't understand the conclusion that this somehow validates or strongly supports panspermia. Fossils are not living beings and cannot cause life to appear anywhere, as far as I'm aware. This doesn't prove or even suggests that living beings may travel in space through meteorites; that they could survive extreme conditions including landing through the earth's atmosphere and crashing at thousands of kilometers per hour onto the ground, and then reproduce and adapt on an alien planet. This seems quite far-fetched even for simple bacteria.

It is well-known that bacteria can survive in space. As for surviving intact, if they were present inside a comet then even though the outer layers would have burnt away during entry into the atmosphere they could have survived to land on the planet's surface. In terms of being able to survive on our planet, it might be that they came from a planet very similar to Earth or there might be so many bacteria coming from ET sources that it's simply a numbers game.

I regard panspermia as a credible theory to the origin of life on this planet but it's very unlikely to ever be proven. The biggest breakthrough would be discovering ET organisms that had survived impact and being able to rule out contamination as a possibility.

This is the strongest evidence yet of cometary panspermia — that life on Earth began when a meteorite containing simple organisms landed here, billions of years ago — and, perhaps more importantly, that there’s life elsewhere in the universe.

I am leaning more this way more and more. The evidence seems to fit. Of course, the evidence needs to be verified by other researchers.

I tend to think money is the biggest scam as we seem to spend our whole lives building it up only to die and not being able to take it with us and some how the lack of it stops us from bettering ourselves.